Legislature(1999 - 2000)
03/15/1999 01:44 PM Senate JUD
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
SB 100-REIMBURSEMENT FOR PUBLIC DEFENDER
SENATOR DONLEY said he was excited to see this legislation
introduced. In 1995, he drafted a related measure in an attempt to
hold down the costs associated with the Public Defender Agency.
SENATOR DONLEY said one of the reasons Public Defender costs are
high in Alaska is the statutory requirement that a person being
represented by the Public Defender should be provided with the same
level of representation as a person independently retaining an
attorney. SENATOR DONLEY's proposal deleted that provision and
mandated that Public Defenders would be provided "at the level and
to the extent required under the United States Constitution and the
Constitution of the State of Alaska."
Number 099
MR. DOUG WOOLIVER, representing the Alaska Court System, thanked
the committee for introducing the bill that requires all criminal
defendants to pay a portion of the state-funded representation they
receive. Currently, only those convicted of crimes are required to
repay this cost; SB 100 would expand the payment requirement to all
people who receive state-funded representation. This change was
suggested by an audit conducted by Legislative Budget and Audit.
MR. WOOLIVER said this bill treats indigents more like non-
indigents. According to a schedule set out in statute, indigents
pay only a portion of the actual cost associated with their
representation. In cases of economic hardship, the court can defer
or remit these costs and, therefore, the bill will not drive
indigent people further into poverty. The bill would make those who
can, pay a portion of their costs.
Number 155
SENATOR TORGERSON asked if the court takes into account the
Permanent Fund Dividend (PFD). MR. WOOLIVER replied it does, and
can even order defendants to apply for a PFD.
SENATOR TORGERSON asked what happens if a person fails to apply for
their PFD even after a court order. MR. WOOLIVER replied the person
is held in contempt of court.
SENATOR HALFORD asked why the bill allows a judge to stay
enforcement of a (monetary) judgement during the appellate process.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR replied this law probably was already in place,
along with the requirement that only those persons convicted had to
pay part of their costs. He no longer sees a reason to have this in
the bill. MR. WOOLIVER agreed.
Number 215
SENATOR HALFORD moved as Amendment #1 to delete the sentence on
line 7 that reads:
"Enforcement of a judgement under this subsection may be
stayed by the trial court or the appellate court during
the pendency of an appeal of the person's conviction."
Without objection, Amendment #1 passed.
SENATOR DONLEY asked MR. WOOLIVER how often the court fails to
enter a judgement against people who use Public Defender services.
MR. WOOLIVER was not sure. SENATOR DONLEY said he would like a
judgement entered in every case. If a person can show economic
hardship, the court could then reduce or stay the judgement.
Number 242
SENATOR DONLEY moved as Amendment #2 to replace the word "may" on
page 1, line 5 with the word "shall." Without objection, Amendment
MR. WOOLIVER said he thinks the discretion offered by the word
"may" is not commonly exercised. SENATOR DONLEY remarked that was
good, and this change makes the statute more consistent with the
court rule.
MS. DIANE WENDLANDT, supervisor of the collections unit of the
Department of Law, commented on the fiscal aspect of the bill. She
answered SENATOR DONLEY's earlier question by testifying that
judgements are ordered in approximately 51% of convicted cases. The
fiscal note is based on fees assessed on an additional 2,300 cases
and equals approximately $224,000 in revenue. However, under SB
100, the waiver rate for judgements may increase. The cost to
implement the bill is estimated at $26,000. She said her office
also deals with remands (refunds), when they are ordered by the
court.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR asked why the court would ever refund money under
the new form of the bill that requires payment from all. MS.
WENDLANDT replied the court sometimes refunds money taken from a
PFD and, "We're in a position where we do what the court tells us
. . . "
SENATOR HALFORD suggested the committee make that provision more
clear. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR remarked, "They've already got the entire
exemption statute . . . you have to have someone earning $38,000 or
40-some-thousand a year before you can execute on them . . . "
Number 342
SENATOR TORGERSON suggested changing the word "shall," on page 1,
line 9 and line 11, to "may." He moved this change as Amendment #3.
Without objection, Amendment #3 was adopted.
SENATOR TORGERSON asked if this would require a court rule change.
MR. WOOLIVER said the court rules applicable to this provision are
substantive, not procedural, and only reflect the statute.
Number 398
SENATOR HALFORD suggested strengthening the wording in line 13. As
Amendment #4, he moved to insert the word "only" to page 1, line
13, before the phrase "the unpaid portion . . . " Without
objection, Amendment #4 was adopted.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR moved Amendment #5: place a period at the word
"judgement" on page 1, line 13, and delete through the phrase
"immediate family" on page 2, line 1. Without objection, Amendment
Number 420
SENATOR DONLEY explained an old piece of legislation he had drafted
in 1995 that eliminates the current standard of providing a public
defender "to the same extent as a person retaining an attorney is
entitled." He said this standard has been used in cases to provide
multiple public defenders for one individual. This amendment would
eliminate that language in the current law and replace it with a
standard requiring "what is required by the U.S. Constitution and
the State Constitution." He moved as Amendment #6 the incorporation
of his old legislation, marked 9-LS1072\A, into SB 100 to achieve
that goal. He noted the change may require the use of the more
general title of the old legislation. Without objection, Amendment
SENATOR HALFORD commented that he is aware of a judge in one
community who appoints counsel for people because there is no
private attorney in town. He wondered if this could be "cured" in
this bill. SENATOR DONLEY predicted there might never be private
counsel in this community since people are being represented for
free. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR said the question is really the definition of
the word "indigent." He thought, depending on the magnitude of the
case, most people could be considered indigent. SENATOR HALFORD
added that even a certain Anchorage developer with a tremendous
cash flow could prove he was indigent.
Number 465
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR announced a committee substitute for SB 100 would
be before the committee Wednesday. SENATOR HALFORD said he would
appreciate any refinement of the definition of indigent possible.
MR. WOOLIVER noted that the court has just adopted several changes
regarding the indigence standard, suggested in the recent
Legislative Budget and Audit review. He suggested the committee
look at those changes that attempt to standardize the appointment
of public defenders.
MR. WOOLIVER explained that if a person is found not to be
indigent, they can either drop the public defender or retain them
at full price (not the Rule 39 schedule fee).
Number 490
SENATOR TORGERSON asked who sets and adjusts the fees under Rule 39
and if the fees include an area cost differential. MR. WOOLIVER
replied it is currently a flat rate and he is not certain when it
was last adjusted. He stated he would inform the committee after
researching the question.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|